I can assure you that games where each side of the conflict is actively trying only to destroy other side are not shallow and mechanically repetitive. For example, for a few years I played Warhammer Fantasy Battle at the tournament level - it is one of those games where each side tries only to wipe out as much of enemy units as it can - and mostly there were deep, dramatic, and skill demanding battles. The same case can be made for Descent - the fact that Overlord is trying to kill heroes absolutely doesn't have to mean that games will be shallow and boring - this assumption is ridiculous. Of course it needs the right game system - and in my opinion Descent's one is right for this, after some slight adjustments.

Also why do you assume that if Descent 2ed. introduced real conflict and direct confrontation it would mean that it will repeat faults of its predecessor?

Case in point - in Imperial Assault (which in opinion of many is improved Descent 2ed.) heroes death made a comeback.

I played Warhammer myself and while it's true that it truly requires skill strategy and tactics to play, your tactic usually revolves around killing the enemy units. The battlefield tells no stories and feels much more like some kind of arena than a part of a bigger world. It always felt very interchangable and unpersonal to me.

Descent 2 offers something else. You embark on a quest-filled-journey and visit some key scenes of the story-arc you are expiriencing. Your playingfield consists of highly individual maps, made up of tiles that represent characteristic rooms or areas of your quest, that play a themetically consistent role in your mission (looking for clues in the library or laboratory, raising zombies in the graveyard, being threatend by boulders in a small rocky passage and so on). Your tactics don't revolve around killing your enemies every time, although there are such quests. In contrast the thing you have to utilise your heroes and monsters for is highly variable and offers a very different metagame every round.

This is the reason I like this game so much: Your always have to adept your tactics to different challanges that make thematic sense within your map, quest and a bigger story-arc. That's excactly why I'm excited about this newest expansion, because it promises on expanding and deepening the integration of story and setting into the gameplay. If it fulfills it's promises I think it expands the base game enough to be called a genuine expansion and not just more of the same.

I can assure you that games where each side of the conflict is actively trying only to destroy other side are not shallow and mechanically repetitive. For example, for a few years I played Warhammer Fantasy Battle at the tournament level - it is one of those games where each side tries only to wipe out as much of enemy units as it can - and mostly there were deep, dramatic, and skill demanding battles. The same case can be made for Descent - the fact that Overlord is trying to kill heroes absolutely doesn't have to mean that games will be shallow and boring - this assumption is ridiculous. Of course it needs the right game system - and in my opinion Descent's one is right for this, after some slight adjustments.

Also why do you assume that if Descent 2ed. introduced real conflict and direct confrontation it would mean that it will repeat faults of its predecessor?

Case in point - in Imperial Assault (which in opinion of many is improved Descent 2ed.) heroes death made a comeback.

Coming late to the party, but here's my input.

I´m not saying games where players solely seek for the destruction of the other parts are necessarly shallow, dumb or light-hearted. What I´m saying is that I mostly enjoy the variety of goals and agendas this game offers you. Then this is still Fantasy, so it's still going to be all about swords and fire balls in the end, but the (very few) games that allow you to do something else than that, even with the swords and magic in the background, diverting you from just "killing stuff" provide way richer experience, at least I´ve found. I don't know, I have never played this game as a hero but as the overlord I often resort to combat only AFTER I´ve positioned myself in a way that puts me closer to my objectives. Sometimes combat is the best viable option, but most often it's about dealing a condition to a hero (immobilize, stun etc) or using a special ability like Throwback, Burrow of the worms, Pillage of the bandits. Some abilities trigger upon combat, some don't. Then of course a party of dead heroes is the best way to win a quest, but I can garantee you this strategy is most risky at best as you have to dedicate everything you´ve got towards that goal and hope the heroes to get really unlucky. It never happens in practice. Heroes are simply too good to defend themselves unless they play very poorly.

I'm not saying either that I don't like pure wargames, but I think Descent has a much richer experience than say Warhammer Quest or Myth from that perspective alone. In my mind the dungeon crawling part, e.g. exploration just adds an element of randomness but at the end of the day all you get is a monster group you didn't know about before you opened the door, and maybe a treasure chest. It's ultra-linear, and above all it doesn't allow anything to happen outside of where the heroes are or have explored. It's all about the pew-pew, grossly exagerated maybe but here you go.

I´ve had great gaming experiences playing Warhammer (the wargame) too, I´ve just gotten over this type of game mainly because of time investment (not to mention about money investment), but also because I think there are some really good games out there allowing players to do so many things and provide much more choices than just having to rely on an attack/defense stat.

It's one man's opinion of course, I´m perfectly fine with the fact you think the opposite, but in all fairness I think Descent is way more than what you think it is. That it doesn't fit your taste is another question, but don't come here and say that Descent lacks depth or immersion.

As the Overlord, even if people have different playstyles and aggressivity level, there is always a right course of action, and killing heroes tends to be the thing you do if there is no other option. Separating a hero from a group seems a better goal than trying to kill him. Then sure, you´re not going to let your monsters sit there if the best they can is to attack, but it often comes down to balance out damage versus the current position of all figures, e.g. prevent the heroes from pursuing their goals.

There is direct confrontation in the game I guess, since it's still going to be a battle between the heroes and the overlord minions. There are no "armies" though, but in a couple of quest we´ve had some sort of "battlefield" with plenty of figures in the same area, just because everything had to be done in that room and because it was fun to experience.

Imperial Assault has many fans indeed, but it doesn't mean its mechanisms necessarly outclass Descent 2Ed. These are two different games. It's fine if you prefer IA's death mechanism above Descent's, but like everybody said this wouldn't work in Descent 2E as it's part of the core mechanism of the game.

Coming late to the party, but here's my input.

I´m not saying games where players solely seek for the destruction of the other parts are necessarly shallow, dumb or light-hearted. What I´m saying is that I mostly enjoy the variety of goals and agendas this game offers you.

Good to hear, I was refering to your earlier post where you stated, I quote:

I do not understand the above reflexion.

That just defeats the point of having a human overlord, if all there is to do is to put your brain aside and go throw some monsters at the heroes.

Thus I wanted to point out that throwing monsters at each others doesn't mean that game is shallow - hence my reference to Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

I can assure you that games where each side of the conflict is actively trying only to destroy other side are not shallow and mechanically repetitive. For example, for a few years I played Warhammer Fantasy Battle at the tournament level - it is one of those games where each side tries only to wipe out as much of enemy units as it can - and mostly there were deep, dramatic, and skill demanding battles. The same case can be made for Descent - the fact that Overlord is trying to kill heroes absolutely doesn't have to mean that games will be shallow and boring - this assumption is ridiculous. Of course it needs the right game system - and in my opinion Descent's one is right for this, after some slight adjustments.

Also why do you assume that if Descent 2ed. introduced real conflict and direct confrontation it would mean that it will repeat faults of its predecessor?

Case in point - in Imperial Assault (which in opinion of many is improved Descent 2ed.) heroes death made a comeback.

It's one man's opinion of course, I´m perfectly fine with the fact you think the opposite, but in all fairness I think Descent is way more than what you think it is. That it doesn't fit your taste is another question, but don't come here and say that Descent lacks depth or immersion.

First of all in this topic we are discussing possibilities for a new Descent 2ed. expansion. Thus it is completly fine and proper if I come here and write about my expectations, what expension I would like to see in the future, also in the context of Descent 2ed. faults - and I would like to see expansion that truly expands Descent 2ed. and give it real dungeon crawler feel and immersive and thematic heroes death. As it stands Descent 2ed. lacks in this department; being fine game otherwise.

Secondly, not even once I mentioned that Descent 2ed. lacks depth. It lacks immersion I admit, but it is not shallow.

First of all in this topic we are discussing possibilities for a new Descent 2ed. expansion. Thus it is completly fine and proper if I come here and write about my expectations, what expension I would like to see in the future, also in the context of Descent 2ed. faults - and I would like to see expansion that truly expands Descent 2ed. and give it real dungeon crawler feel and immersive and thematic heroes death. As it stands Descent 2ed. lacks in this department; being fine game otherwise.

Secondly, not even once I mentioned that Descent 2ed. lacks depth. It lacks immersion I admit, but it is not shallow.

I understand your stance, however Descent 2E never tried to be a classic dungeon crawler, so I see no point in bringing out an expansion that changes the fundamentals of the game (turning it into a classic dungeon crawler). People who like the fundamentals of this game won't buy it and people who don't like the fundamentals of this game probably don't own the game (anymore). I think only very few people are willing to invest in a game they don't like and are required to buy an additional expansion, just to play the game they want.

Can you maybe explain why the hero-knock-out is unthematic in Descent 2E?

I think this assumption only comes from not really playing this game enough, because the mechanic makes perfect thematic sense: A freshly revived hero usually comes back with only half of his health and is unable to use any of his skills. This means he normally can't do much in the turn he got revived and remains an easy target to be knocked out again, just like you would imagine someone who comes back to his senses after being knocked out. I like the idea of knock-out vs. dying, because heroes usually don't die before the story comes to its conclusion. The fact that heroes die and are resurected in town seems like a much cheaper thematic shortcut than getting knocked out and coming back as a glorified creep and regaining his abilities over a short period of time.

Moreover you have normal permanent death in the final.

I as someone who likes Descent 2E mechanics, would like to see expansions that build on the fundamentals of this game and aim to better the characteristics of Descent 2E: The feel of a journey with very different goals and challanges that is thematically tied to the map you are playing on. In this regard the big box expansions are very successfull and the new campaign-book expansion also sounds very promising.

I can see that you might find it strange why a dragon just would knock a hero out instead of finishing him, but you have to consider the implications this would have to the gameplay. It is never fun for a player to get eliminated (and being forced to watch the game play out without him in the process). It´s even worse if there is some kind of perma-death. This works for finale encounter, but not earlier in the campaigns.

Also, I think FFG explicitly tried to avoid this, especially when considering how long a campaign usually lasts. I guess a lot of people would be put off of the idea of playing descent, if they would have to consider watching half of a quest playing out without being able to do anything, because they were killed at some point in the first encounter.

This might also lead to a lot of tension between the killed hero and the overlord player, because the hero might feel like being picked on. On the other side, this would lead to psychological pressure on the overlord, to hold back, and not "offend" hero players (and thus driving them away from playing descent in the future) by killing them. The heroes on the other hand might get the feeling, that the overlord is not playing seriously and is easy soft on them, if he avoids killing the players.

Considering all these dynamics, I think the knock-out mechanic is a good compromise to avoid all these possible negative effects, and I´m very glad it is done in the way it is in Descent 2E. There might be games where these kinds of mechanics make sense, but personally I was never a fan of games, where one player is eliminated and forced to watch the others play the game out, possibly for hours.

I understand your stance, however Descent 2E never tried to be a classic dungeon crawler, so I see no point in bringing out an expansion that changes the fundamentals of the game (turning it into a classic dungeon crawler). People who like the fundamentals of this game won't buy it and people who don't like the fundamentals of this game probably don't own the game (anymore). I think only very few people are willing to invest in a game they don't like and are required to buy an additional expansion, just to play the game they want.

I can't agree with you.

First off, you assume that people who like Descent 2ed. would not buy expansion that changes it into dungeon crawl. Well. I am Descent 2ed. fan, got a lot of expansions and I would buy good dungeon crawl add-on in a heartbeat.

Secondly, there already is expansion that changes Descent 2ed. into dungeon crawl - it is called Forgotten Souls. The problem is it is boring co-op where living, thinking and scheming opponent is replaced by retarded game system. I want direct confrontation, the thrill coming from the fact that I am against true opponent, not some kind of card-based artificial engine. With co-op dungeon crawl I might as well play Diablo 3.

Can you maybe explain why the hero-knock-out is unthematic in Descent 2E?

I think this assumption only comes from not really playing this game enough, because the mechanic makes perfect thematic sense: A freshly revived hero usually comes back with only half of his health and is unable to use any of his skills. This means he normally can't do much in the turn he got revived and remains an easy target to be knocked out again, just like you would imagine someone who comes back to his senses after being knocked out. I like the idea of knock-out vs. dying, because heroes usually don't die before the story comes to its conclusion. The fact that heroes die and are resurected in town seems like a much cheaper thematic shortcut than getting knocked out and coming back as a glorified creep and regaining his abilities over a short period of time.

Moreover you have normal permanent death in the final.

Well, I played games of Descent 2ed. tens of times, so I think I am qualified enough to tell why I don't like certain mechanisms.

Of course I can explain why death absence is unthematic, in sentence below:

"Our heroes journey through the dark corridors, trying to break up schemes of powerful being known as Overlord, fighting against powerful monsters sended by him - dragons, demons, beasts and evil sorcerers using eldritch magic, all this time risking... being knocked out, and losing a little bit of precious time!!!."

I can see that you might find it strange why a dragon just would knock a hero out instead of finishing him, but you have to consider the implications this would have to the gameplay. It is never fun for a player to get eliminated (and being forced to watch the game play out without him in the process). It´s even worse if there is some kind of perma-death. This works for finale encounter, but not earlier in the campaigns.

Also, I think FFG explicitly tried to avoid this, especially when considering how long a campaign usually lasts. I guess a lot of people would be put off of the idea of playing descent, if they would have to consider watching half of a quest playing out without being able to do anything, because they were killed at some point in the first encounter.

I understand arguments behind introducing knock out mechanic but the problem is it does more harm then good. (it is unthematic, its breaks immersion, it often results in deathlock situation).

Descent 1ed. had great concept of conquest points - thus death of heroes was meaningful, scenarios could be conflict oriented instead of objective oriented, and none of the players was in danger of being eliminated before game ending.

This might also lead to a lot of tension between the killed hero and the overlord player, because the hero might feel like being picked on. On the other side, this would lead to psychological pressure on the overlord, to hold back, and not "offend" hero players (and thus driving them away from playing descent in the future) by killing them. The heroes on the other hand might get the feeling, that the overlord is not playing seriously and is easy soft on them, if he avoids killing the players.

First of knock out mechanic is not any better, because knock out often result in deathlock - your hero stand up just in time to be pounded into the ground some more - so player might get feeling of being picked out also with knock out rules.

If playing games might induce bad tension between players my bet it is fault of the players, and not the game. We are all grown up people, not kids. In my play group we always play ruthless and to maximum potential (be it Descent, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Twilight Imperium. Nexus Ops) and there are no hurt feelings or personal issues after the game - but of course it demands some level of maturity.

I wouldn't mind a set collecting the Lieutenants from the base game at a reasonable price, even if it doesn't have the extra overlord stuff.

I understand your stance, however Descent 2E never tried to be a classic dungeon crawler, so I see no point in bringing out an expansion that changes the fundamentals of the game (turning it into a classic dungeon crawler). People who like the fundamentals of this game won't buy it and people who don't like the fundamentals of this game probably don't own the game (anymore). I think only very few people are willing to invest in a game they don't like and are required to buy an additional expansion, just to play the game they want.

I can't agree with you.

First off, you assume that people who like Descent 2ed. would not buy expansion that changes it into dungeon crawl. Well. I am Descent 2ed. fan, got a lot of expansions and I would buy good dungeon crawl add-on in a heartbeat.

Secondly, there already is expansion that changes Descent 2ed. into dungeon crawl - it is called Forgotten Souls. The problem is it is boring co-op where living, thinking and scheming opponent is replaced by retarded game system. I want direct confrontation, the thrill coming from the fact that I am against true opponent, not some kind of card-based artificial engine. With co-op dungeon crawl I might as well play Diablo 3.

Can you maybe explain why the hero-knock-out is unthematic in Descent 2E?

I think this assumption only comes from not really playing this game enough, because the mechanic makes perfect thematic sense: A freshly revived hero usually comes back with only half of his health and is unable to use any of his skills. This means he normally can't do much in the turn he got revived and remains an easy target to be knocked out again, just like you would imagine someone who comes back to his senses after being knocked out. I like the idea of knock-out vs. dying, because heroes usually don't die before the story comes to its conclusion. The fact that heroes die and are resurected in town seems like a much cheaper thematic shortcut than getting knocked out and coming back as a glorified creep and regaining his abilities over a short period of time.

Moreover you have normal permanent death in the final.

Well, I played games of Descent 2ed. tens of times, so I think I am qualified enough to tell why I don't like certain mechanisms.

Of course I can explain why death absence is unthematic, in sentence below:

"Our heroes journey through the dark corridors, trying to break up schemes of powerful being known as Overlord, fighting against powerful monsters sended by him - dragons, demons, beasts and evil sorcerers using eldritch magic, all this time risking... being knocked out, and losing a little bit of precious time!!!."

First of knock out mechanic is not any better, because knock out often result in deathlock - your hero stand up just in time to be pounded into the ground some more - so player might get feeling of being picked out also with knock out rules.

I think the reason why FFG released the co-op stuff as a POD is to see how many people are interested turning Descent into a classic dungeon crawler. I don't know how successfull this expansion was, but I think it's smart to not invest a large amount of money into an expansion that basically completely alters the fundamentals of the base game.

As for your problem with knock-out, I still think you got that wrong. Here is your sentence modified to what fits Descent fundamental game-design:

"Our heroes journey across the land, trying to get behind and prevent the plan of an evil force known as the Overlord to lure the whole land into an age of darkness. The heroes rush to secure and defend crucial strategic points, prevent the OL of getting the artifacts he needs for his plans all while being attacked by powerful monsters sended by him, to further his plans - dragons, demons, beasts and evil sorcerers using eldritch magic. All this time the heroes are risking... being knocked out and losing precious time, leaving the Overlord without opposition for the time he needs to grab the relics and overthrow the last defenses of this land and thus succeeding in his plan, which ultimatly will be the death of the heroes."

I wouldn't mind a set collecting the Lieutenants from the base game at a reasonable price, even if it doesn't have the extra overlord stuff.

I really would like to see that as well, imo it's one of these unrealistic wishes though.

There are people buying Descent2 stuff only in the hope to have it converted to a classical dungeon crawler :-)

I don't seem able to write a simple answer to anything in less than 6000 words so here you go.

Good to hear, I was refering to your earlier post where you stated, I quote:

That just defeats the point of having a human overlord, if all there is to do is to put your brain aside and go throw some monsters at the heroes.

Thus I wanted to point out that throwing monsters at each others doesn't mean that game is shallow - hence my reference to Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

In a game like Warhammer, which is the incarnation of two massive armies fighting against each other with its own tactical set, no it's not totally brainless. In a game like Descent, throwing monsters at the heroes would indeed be completely uninteresting and such a weak strategy. There is no point anyway, both thematically and for the purpose of winning. If you have played the game, you know that you just can't do that. Like I said, this game articulates around combat, but this is more about positioning your figures and harass the heroes than killing them. It's about forcing them to waste actions getting rid of monsters while your Goblin runs away grabbing the final crop. There is an unprinted number of actions required to kill a monster, so all you need to do as the Overlord is to force your heroes to "put their brains aside" and wave their weapons at your minions instead of focusing on the real purpose of the mission.

Then of course it's not like combat is not a viable course of action in this game. Rat Swarms for instance is all about the "throwing it at the heroes", but that's not a general strategy for every monster in the game. From the perspective of a "total war" between two parts, like you suggest, it's neither viable nor it is balanced (assuming equal luck between sides).

The Overlord is not a monster spawn point. It's all about reading your objectives, look at what you have on the table and assign figures to do stuff for you. Remove that choice to only leave combat and Decent loses all of what would make it truly unique.

See, I wouldn't mind seeing an expansion with more non-combat-oriented choices in form of new figures, like Overlord builders or "civilians" (I guess they exist in form of tokens currently) where the Overlord tries to build something, even digging or getting ore or whatever. Figures heroes wouuldn't necessarly need to kill, but just have some control over. Overlord could use monsters to force civilians to do tasks etc. That's not a revolutionary thought at all, but the amount of choices would broaden up.

Another idea: a quest where combat makes noise and wakes up some giant creature, or whatever. It would be interesting to see a party of heroes trying to get around monsters without the possibility of actually fighting them. Or a quest where heroes need to get back their weapons hidden somewhere in a cave before they can fight again. Why the hell not? Why does it have to be epic?

First of all in this topic we are discussing possibilities for a new Descent 2ed. expansion. Thus it is completly fine and proper if I come here and write about my expectations, what expension I would like to see in the future, also in the context of Descent 2ed. faults - and I would like to see expansion that truly expands Descent 2ed. and give it real dungeon crawler feel and immersive and thematic heroes death. As it stands Descent 2ed. lacks in this department; being fine game otherwise.

Secondly, not even once I mentioned that Descent 2ed. lacks depth. It lacks immersion I admit, but it is not shallow.

Yes, but you´re not talking about expanding Descent, you´re talking about a redesign of the core game and that's what makes discussion difficult. You´re basically suggesting that Descent should become more like the 100s of games doing the exact things you are describing and remove all of its uniqueness.

I mean, Descent 2ED will never be a dungeon crawl game, period. The co-op line does that but it's a totally new game using the core game's material, it's not an expansion per say.

Also people have been talking about the "inherent flaws with the game" recently, but when you actually get to find out what people mean behind this you get to the conclusion that people "dislike some rule or mechanism" or "prefer game Y over Descent", so it's all about taste in the end. Why can't people accept the way the game is and move on? People can house rule as much as they want anyway so why taking the rant to these forums?

Bad strategy, planning or even bad luck is always going to irritate people and most often they will scream about unbalance and unfairness in return. These people wouldn't be happy with a game summarized to just rolling a 2-6 on a D6. The people getting the 1 would still scream for flaws, FFG being evil and Imperial Assault being a plain better game in every way. Game design is really hard, making a unique game set in the fantasy theme is another difficult task, and yet we have complainers all over the place. Mind you, they do spend time coming to these forums.

I also have my own little list of things I would have liked to see in Descent, but I totally get that the game needs to stay streamlined and fully accept the fact D2E is its own little brew and that people can develop house rules if they want to modify it.

As for issues with imersion, everybody knows Descent is not about getting overflown with flavor text, but I´d think most of us D2E fans would agree on the fact FFG's put a great job balancing the story against the game play. This game needs to flow and story slows the game down, this is not a 6-hours RPG. But players are free to introduce more fluff if they want and have ttime to spend on that, and if you want to know more about the story, the characters and locations you can always check out the data about the world itself, which has been described in more in-depth RPGs or games from FFG.

I found that, with some time between playing quests, getting a picture of the whole story for a campaign was difficult. I created a document that summarises the story for each quest and has multiple options to read out, depending on whether the Overlord won, the Heroes won, or the quest was not played. The summary is read out ahead of the Interlude and Final quests (quests played first, then unplayed quests) and whenever else it is felt necessary. So if there is a wish to focus a little more on the story, I reckon it is easy to do so.

That's a good idea- sort of "When we last left our heroes, they were..." The groups I'm a part of attempt to do weekly games if possible, but there have been month stretches between quests on several occasions- can't hurt to have a refresher on what has transpired.

I don't seem able to write a simple answer to anything in less than 6000 words so here you go.

Good to hear, I was refering to your earlier post where you stated, I quote:

That just defeats the point of having a human overlord, if all there is to do is to put your brain aside and go throw some monsters at the heroes.

Thus I wanted to point out that throwing monsters at each others doesn't mean that game is shallow - hence my reference to Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

In a game like Warhammer, which is the incarnation of two massive armies fighting against each other with its own tactical set, no it's not totally brainless. In a game like Descent, throwing monsters at the heroes would indeed be completely uninteresting and such a weak strategy . There is no point anyway, both thematically and for the purpose of winning. If you have played the game, you know that you just can't do that. Like I said, this game articulates around combat, but this is more about positioning your figures and harass the heroes than killing them. It's about forcing them to waste actions getting rid of monsters while your Goblin runs away grabbing the final crop. There is an unprinted number of actions required to kill a monster, so all you need to do as the Overlord is to force your heroes to "put their brains aside" and wave their weapons at your minions instead of focusing on the real purpose of the mission.

Uninteresting and weak strategy? Really subjective arguments, at least the first one.

First off game can be constructed around direct conflict also on the tactical level and still be really interesting game (Omega Protocol, Descent 1ed.). There can be still plenty of dilemmas: How do I have to protect weakest teammember?, How do I have to effectively kill monster?, Where should I allocate my attacks?, How should I use cover and terrain to maximum effect? You talk how hunting for heroes is uninteresting strategy - again, biased and totally subjective opinion,you see only throwing monster when in fact you can construct game in such a way that hunting for heores can be strategically deep and demanding.

Secondly I am not talking about currently existing adventures - we are talking about expansion adventures, there those adventures can be designed with direct conflict in mind.

First of all in this topic we are discussing possibilities for a new Descent 2ed. expansion. Thus it is completly fine and proper if I come here and write about my expectations, what expension I would like to see in the future, also in the context of Descent 2ed. faults - and I would like to see expansion that truly expands Descent 2ed. and give it real dungeon crawler feel and immersive and thematic heroes death. As it stands Descent 2ed. lacks in this department; being fine game otherwise.

Secondly, not even once I mentioned that Descent 2ed. lacks depth. It lacks immersion I admit, but it is not shallow.

Yes, but you´re not talking about expanding Descent, you´re talking about a redesign of the core game and that's what makes discussion difficult. You´re basically suggesting that Descent should become more like the 100s of games doing the exact things you are describing and remove all of its uniqueness.

I mean, Descent 2ED will never be a dungeon crawl game, period. The co-op line does that but it's a totally new game using the core game's material, it's not an expansion per say.

Also people have been talking about the "inherent flaws with the game" recently, but when you actually get to find out what people mean behind this you get to the conclusion that people "dislike some rule or mechanism" or "prefer game Y over Descent", so it's all about taste in the end. Why can't people accept the way the game is and move on? People can house rule as much as they want anyway so why taking the rant to these forums?

Bad strategy, planning or even bad luck is always going to irritate people and most often they will scream about unbalance and unfairness in return. These people wouldn't be happy with a game summarized to just rolling a 2-6 on a D6. The people getting the 1 would still scream for flaws, FFG being evil and Imperial Assault being a plain better game in every way. Game design is really hard, making a unique game set in the fantasy theme is another difficult task, and yet we have complainers all over the place. Mind you, they do spend time coming to these forums.

First off, you just arbitrarily assumed Descent expansion Forgotten Souls isn't Descent expansion but another game because it suits your argumentation.

You are wrong.

Forgotten Souls uses core mechanics of Descent, uses its tiles, uses its monsters and heroes, and it is selled under Descent franchise. It is Descent 2ed. expansion - and proves Descent 2ed. can be a dungeon crawler.

Also we are talking about expansion, not changes to core game. If you prefer racing for objectives, and less dungeon crawling approach you can skip hypothetical expansion - no one is forcing you to buy and implement expansion that will make Descent 2ed. dungeon crawl. I will give you example - I like Twilight Imperium but I really dont like Shards of the Throne expansion; do I fight against it? Of course not, I just don't use this expansion in my Twilight Imperium games.

I hope guys from FFG are coming over these forums. One can only dream they will finally do Descent 2ed. dungeon crawl expansion, the real one, with direct conflict player interaction.

Blah-blah

You´re welcome to design your own game.

EDIT: Responded later in the thread. Not changing the post since people quoted it anyway. Do what you want with it.

Blah-blah

You´re welcome to design your own game.

Such a mature way to end discussion. What is even funnier, you completely missed my point.

You are wrong.

Since only your opinion is valid I guess there was never any discussion.

/popcorn

Ready...? FIGHT !!

Seriously guys, can you stop acting like children ? Thanks.

Even if I'm more from the same point of view than Indalecio, I don't think you should act like you're doing with your argumentation .

Forgotten souls isn't a really good extension of the game (to my mind), but it's still one. So Embir is right on this fact : don't transform things only to suit your argumentation.

However, Embir, you can have all the ideas you want but don't speak about pointless things please : Descent v2 isn't suited to be a real great only coop game. Whithout an OL, the game is just boring and repetitive as ****...

It would be easier to make another complete game than to transform the game.

But if you really want a good coop game, we have the material, and the quest vault is here for that. I'm pretty sure every player could do something great with that. It's up to you to make us a really good coop campaign ! But don't try to transform the game as you want, that's not how it should works...

Sorry about the "bla-bla", I just lost patience while typing and decided to abort my response when I hit the "you´re wrong". It just annoyed me to no end, but I know I should have been better in my reply, so apologies.

Uninteresting and weak strategy? Really subjective arguments, at least the first one.

First off game can be constructed around direct conflict also on the tactical level and still be really interesting game (Omega Protocol, Descent 1ed.). There can be still plenty of dilemmas: How do I have to protect weakest teammember?, How do I have to effectively kill monster?, Where should I allocate my attacks?, How should I use cover and terrain to maximum effect? You talk how hunting for heroes is uninteresting strategy - again, biased and totally subjective opinion,you see only throwing monster when in fact you can construct game in such a way that hunting for heores can be strategically deep and demanding.

That could be done, yes, there is no question about it. But if you take D2E as the game to implement this in, I´m not sure where that would lead you:

- Introduce way more stats for dealing with in-depth combat maybe?

- Introduce cover mechanisms for instance, and other combat-related things like maybe supply?

= more complexity into a streamlined game

- Less focus on everything else than combat.

= Can be okay, but again the other stuff is what makes Descent interesting at the first place.

Of course my opinion is biased and subjective, I like Descent because it's not that 100% combat game you described. But I would also play the game you described, I just wouldn't want Descent to become that game, that's all. We don't need to change already good (even staple) games to such extent is the point I was trying to explain.

Secondly I am not talking about currently existing adventures - we are talking about expansion adventures, there those adventures can be designed with direct conflict in mind.

Like Forgotten Souls, you could alter the core mechanisms of the base game and implement the above. Since you´d be going more in depth to cover your expanded "combat experience", I´m not sure the current game material would be 100% compatible with your expansion, though. Would the expanded rules come on top of the current ones, or would it require more stats and abilities? Again, I guess it'd be doable to release an expansion line with these things in, but wouldn't it revolution the core game too much without having to re-design the material?

First off, you just arbitrarily assumed Descent expansion Forgotten Souls isn't Descent expansion but another game because it suits your argumentation.

It's an expansion by definition. But it is not a normal expansion as for expanding the base game. It changes core concepts of the base game. 1vsall -> full co-op. 5 players -> 4 players (for my playgroup it's a big deal). preset maps -> exploration. human-controlled monsters -> programmed monsters. It's not the same experience at all, which is why in my view, and despite the material is the same, it's not the same "game". Objectives are different, setup is different. It's a bit like taking the pieces of Trivial Pursuit and play bowling with the wheels, a bit exagerated but it's not the same thing. Of course it's Descent 2Ed, but a new game mode. I can't ask my players if they want to play Descent tonight without mentioning if it's going to be with Forgotten Souls or not. As opposed to deciding on which expansions we want to bring in as we sit and open the box.

Forgotten Souls uses core mechanics of Descent, uses its tiles, uses its monsters and heroes, and it is selled under Descent franchise. It is Descent 2ed. expansion - and proves Descent 2ed. can be a dungeon crawler.

It proves that Descent can be made to a dungeon crawler, but it gets rid of a hell lot of interesting and unique concepts in the process.

Also we are talking about expansion, not changes to core game. If you prefer racing for objectives, and less dungeon crawling approach you can skip hypothetical expansion - no one is forcing you to buy and implement expansion that will make Descent 2ed. dungeon crawl. I will give you example - I like Twilight Imperium but I really dont like Shards of the Throne expansion; do I fight against it? Of course not, I just don't use this expansion in my Twilight Imperium games.

I don't dispute that.

I hope guys from FFG are coming over these forums. One can only dream they will finally do Descent 2ed. dungeon crawl expansion, the real one, with direct conflict player interaction.

Like I said it's not that I don't like dungeon crawlers, and I´ve played a ton of them back in the days, but I´m not interested to make Descent that game, that's all.

Well played Indalecio !

I agree with your whole post, from the apology to the end o/

That's my boy !

Thanks for last post Indalecio, that was good read.

Well in the end it all comes down to preferences. I don't want to change Descent 2ed. I like this game as it is - fact which I pointed out many times in this topic. But because we were talking about hypothetical expansions I presented my expectations - nothing more. I just want to see dungeon crawling expansion which is about direct confrontation between Overlord and the players (in vein of Decent 1ed. or Omega Protocol). Furthermore, because it would be an expansion, it wouldn't change base game and only players interested in more conflict/exploration oriented games would implement said expansion in their games.

Expansion like that wouldn't automatically invalidate earlier expansions or former gameplay style of Descent as a whole.

It would be played only by those interested in this kind of stuff. Thus it would be a perfect type of expansion: it wouldn't change the base game (good for players like Indalecio) unless it is implemented into - and being implemented it would suit tastes of players like me.

If anything, the fact that campaign "Forgotten Souls" from being Game Night Kit exclusive only ended as POD material proves that there are a lot of people interested in more dungeon crawling experience.

/popcorn

Ready...? FIGHT !!

Seriously guys, can you stop acting like children ? Thanks.

Even if I'm more from the same point of view than Indalecio, I don't think you should act like you're doing with your argumentation .

Forgotten souls isn't a really good extension of the game (to my mind), but it's still one. So Embir is right on this fact : don't transform things only to suit your argumentation.

However, Embir, you can have all the ideas you want but don't speak about pointless things please : Descent v2 isn't suited to be a real great only coop game. Whithout an OL, the game is just boring and repetitive as ****...

It would be easier to make another complete game than to transform the game.

But if you really want a good coop game, we have the material, and the quest vault is here for that. I'm pretty sure every player could do something great with that. It's up to you to make us a really good coop campaign ! But don't try to transform the game as you want, that's not how it should works...

Well I didn't behave like a child, if you think so point out which parts of my earlier posts were childlish.

Back on topic:

I agree with you that co-op is boring without Overlord, I stated this many times before, you should check or read carefully my earlier posts; therefore I expect hypotetical expansion to be dungeon crawler without cooperation, instead based on players vs overlord dynamic (in vein of Descent 1ed. or Omega Protocol). And Descent 2ed. seems to me viable for this kind of expansion.

Thanks for last post Indalecio, that was good read.

Well in the end it all comes down to preferences. I don't want to change Descent 2ed. I like this game as it is - fact which I pointed out many times in this topic. But because we were talking about hypothetical expansions I presented my expectations - nothing more. I just want to see dungeon crawling expansion which is about direct confrontation between Overlord and the players (in vein of Decent 1ed. or Omega Protocol). Furthermore, because it would be an expansion, it wouldn't change base game and only players interested in more conflict/exploration oriented games would implement said expansion in their games.

Expansion like that wouldn't automatically invalidate earlier expansions or former gameplay style of Descent as a whole.

It would be played only by those interested in this kind of stuff. Thus it would be a perfect type of expansion: it wouldn't change the base game (good for players like Indalecio) unless it is implemented into - and being implemented it would suit tastes of players like me.

If anything, the fact that campaign "Forgotten Souls" from being Game Night Kit exclusive only ended as POD material proves that there are a lot of people interested in more dungeon crawling experience.

Yeah no worries at all. I´m on vacation now so it's all good.

It's perfectly fine to wish for an expansion going for this type of dungeon crawling experience. Like you pointed out, there are multiple ways to achieve this, and the POD product line proves that different game modes can be introduced to Descent in order to explore alternative ways to enjoy the game.

What made me react at the first place was the fact that it feels like we have already this type of experience in other games, so I wanted to highlight what made D2E different and why its uniqueness should be preserved instead of replacing these bits by other interesting - yet already seen in many other games - combat-based mechanisms. But like you said there was a good response to the POD and you´re not the first guy to ask for this type of thing, so maybe there can be a future for this, although maybe not in a way as drastic as what was suggested earlier.

The thing I wish the most is to get hold of interesting quests and mechanisms. I like combat but I like choices above that. Diversity and uniqueness is what keeps me in the Overlord business

I'm going to echo the sentiment that I don't think Descent second edition is good as a dungeon crawl co-op. As a strategic and tactical combat game featuring 1 vs. a group, it works wonderfully. There are a plethora of other games that do the dungeon crawl thing, and you never get a good result when you try to pidgeonhole a game into being something it isn't. I would rather focus on improving and developing content for the game Descent is, rather than try to force it to be something it isn't when there are plenty of alternatives to switch to for that kind of experience. The tactical competition of Descent is what interested me in the first place, I have no interest in it as a co-operative experience or dungeon crawl. I can always play Dungeons and Dragons instead for that.

Embir82 : Funny how Indalecio had no troubles recognizing his mistakes when you do nothing but deny them.

Whatever, who cares...

As for the coop, you're right : I didn't read all your posts. However, Descent v1 was, to me, a dungeon crawler without OL. The OL in descent v1 was nothing more than a rolemaster, and didn't have real objectives like in v2. So with or without, a game like that isn't fun to my mind. And for sure, isn't suited to be an expansion of Descent v2.

Better make another game if you wanna do that. But again, you're free to show us we can make a funny expansion with all the components of Descent v2 with he quest vault.

Well, there are a lot of people liking Forgotten Souls and Nature's Ire as Descent2 coop dungeon crawling. So why not give them a big expansion for coop playing? As tactical game there are already a lot of expansions :-)

BTW, I am one of the tons liking Descent2 as coop crawling (and not liking Descent1 and Descent2 tactical) and not liking other dungeon crawling games (if any really exists as coop).

I found the coop quests to be really fun to experience. =)

They can do so many variation of things now there is so much content to work with.

I would really like to see a Expansion that would utilize pieces from all the previously released content, sort of a "end-goal" for the Descent collector.